The defendant and prosecutor's appeal are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (legal scenarios and unreasonable sentencing) committed the instant crime under the single criminal intent on a single opportunity. Since the Defendant’s previous larceny crime was committed at intervals of time and contingent, the Defendant’s past larceny crime was committed, and thus, the Defendant’s recidivism was not revealed. Moreover, the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts as to the acquittal portion) found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds of the judgment of evidence against the mobile phone larceny portion.

2. The lower court determined that the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts was not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant stolen one cell phone owned by the victim D in C-si located near the Sail Station located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, on October 30, 2012, on the grounds that it was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant stolen one cell phone owned by the victim D.

In this regard, the defendant consistently argued that the victim tried to find one cell phone in order to clean up the earth and sand of the victim, and that he left the road by leaving the cell phone and then leaving it back.

According to the records, the victim stored the reflect wall containing a credit card in the co-owned machine, and the mobile phone was stored in the main machine (Evidence No. 49 of the record). Thus, the location and method of storage of the credit card and the mobile phone were different, and there was no record of criminal punishment by theft of the taxi passenger's mobile phone in the past, and the defendant was not likely to have stolen the mobile phone because he carried a considerable amount of money with a stolen credit card at the time of the instant case, and there was no high probability of theft of the mobile phone. In light of the records, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant stolen the mobile phone with the intent of illegal acquisition only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently.

Therefore, the court below's decision of not guilty of this part of the facts charged is justified, and the prosecutor's argument is without merit.